JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan and Walford, JJ. - This revision application u/s 115 of the CPC is brought from an order dated the 27th April, 1942, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur, amending the decree under the Debt Redemption Act. The revision was filed on the 12th August, 1942.

2. The facts are these :

On the 16th July, 1898, Ram Adhin Pandey, mortgaged with possession five Bighas and 18 Biswas of cultivated land and one bigha eight biswas and ten biswansis of uncultivated land in village Nakrapur, tahsil Akbarpur, distract Fyzabad, for lis. 300 in favour of Kam Lakhan Pandey, The interest stipulated in the deed was Rs. 12/8 per cent per annum. Two deeds of further charge were also executed ; the first one on the 14th January, 1898, for Rs. 195 at Annas -/3/6 per rupee per annum com- poundable yearly, and the second on the 22nd November, 1899 for Rs. 90 at the same rate of interest. The application u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act was brought by the representatives of the mortgagor against the representative of the mortgagee. On the 30th September, 191-3, the redemption was decreed by the Sub-Division Officer of Akbarpur on payment of Rs. 2,071 to be paid within six months or in default the application shall stand dismissed. This period expired on the 30th March, 1941, but no money was paid. An appeal was taken by the mortgagors but this was dismissed on the 10th May, 1941, by the District Judge. They, however, filed an application on the 31st July, 1941, praying for amendment of the decree and asking time for payment of the money which may be found on ac- counting. A written statement was filed objecting to the amendment on the ground that the judgment-debtors did not carry out the order of the Court dated the 30th September, 1940, that the decree had spent itself by the flux of time and there was no legal decree in existence which could be amended. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed, the objection, went into the accounts and came to the conclusion that the money had been paid out of the usufruct of the property and nothing was due. He accordingly ordered redemption without payment. He does not appear to have dealt with the legal argument as to the maintainability of the application for amendment presumably because, the case was not presented to him in arguments in that light.

3. We have heard Counsel for parties at considerable length and after having given our best consideration to the case have come to the conclusion that the order of the trial Court must be maintained.

4. A preliminary point which falls for consideration is whether this Court is competent to entertain the revision without the applicant having preferred an appeal before the District Judge. While the opposite-parties contend that an appeal lay to the District Judge and a revision could not be filed direct in this Court, the applicant contends that no appeal lay to the District Judge from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as that order was neither passed in a regular suit nor in the course of the execution proceedings but even if an appeal lay to the District Judge, no second appeal lay to this Court and a revision was in any case entertainable by this Court. It regards the first branch of the contention, we are of opinion that the matter is concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Salik Ram v. Ram Sarup 1945 OA 133 : AWR(CC) 133 : OWN 230. The answer to the first question, which covers this point, is as follows:-

1 (a) The order passed by the Court amending or refusing to amend the decree will be appealable in the same way as the original decree was appealable. If the original decree was passed by the Civil Court, it will be open to first appeal and second appeal under Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC respectively. If the decree was passed u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act., the right of appeal will be restricted by Section 23 of the Act and there will be no right of second appeal. The decree will be revisable if